{"id":146347,"date":"2008-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-27T01:26:58","modified_gmt":"2016-10-26T19:56:58","slug":"income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/480\/1999\t 2\/ 14\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 480 of 1999\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\tYes.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ? Yes.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nINCOME\nTAX OFFICER - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nVXL\nINDIA LIMITED - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMRS\nMAUNA M.  BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR SN SOPARKAR for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\t\tDate\n: 06\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n
1.\tThe
\nrevenue has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the
\nIncome-Tax Act, 1961 proposing to formulate  the following
\nsubstantial question of law for determination and consideration of
\nthis Court:\n<\/p>\n
?SWhether, the Appellate
\nTribunal is right in law and on facts in restoring the matter to the
\nAssessing Officer to decide the issue of grant of deduction under
\nSection 80HHC when the said claim was neither made nor certificates
\nof the auditor was filed under Section 10CCAB of the Act along with
\nreturn of income???\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThis
\ncourt has admitted this Tax appeal  on 30-8-2000 reframing the
\nfollowing substantial question of law :\n<\/p>\n
?SWhether, the Appellate
\nTribunal was right in making a remand of the case to the Assessing
\nAuthority for considering  the claim of deduction  u\/s 80 HHC
\nregardless of the fact that in accordance with sub-section (4) of the
\nsaid Section, the assessee  had not submitted the requisite report
\nwith the certification of  the Accountant and the said report with
\nthe certificate was produced in the course of assessment ???\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nfacts giving rise to the present Tax Appeal  are that the assessee
\nhas made claim for deduction  u\/s 80HHC of the Income-Tax Act during
\nthe course of assessment proceedings. No such claim was made by the
\nAssessee at the time of filing of the return of income. It was the
\ncase of the assessee that the claim u\/s 80HHC of the Act could be put
\nup  even in the assessment proceedings subsequently. The Assessing
\nOfficer held that with the plain reading of   sub-section (4) of
\nSection 80HHC makes it clear that no deduction  under sub-section (1)
\n shall  be admissible unless the assessee  furnished report of the
\nAccountant  as defined in  sub-section  along with the return of
\nincome.  Keeping in view the said provisions, the Assessing Officer
\nhas rejected the claim of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBeing
\naggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee
\npreferred an appeal  before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal),
\nRajkot. The learned CIT(A) has observed in its order  that the
\nassessee did not put up this claim in the original  return but
\npressed this claim only during the assessment proceedings subsequent
\non the export  reserve was created in the annual accounts,
\nsubsequently  in the form of a letter dated  26-12-1989 that it
\nshould be treated as revised  return. He has, therefore, confirmed
\nthe  order of the Assessing  Officer by observing that assessing
\nofficer  has rightly pointed out that  the claim will  not be
\nadmissible  unless  the assessee  files the report of an accountant
\nalong with the return of  income as provided  under Section 288
\nsub-section (1) & (2) along with Explanation thereto.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tBeing
\naggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A) the assessee took up the
\nmatter before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the
\ntribunal took the view that the assessing officer should not have
\nrejected the  claim of the assessee on merely technical ground. The
\nTribunal, therefore, remitted the said issue back to the Assessing
\nOfficer directing him to consider the claim of the assessee in
\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIt
\nis in the above background of the matter, the present appeal is
\nfiled by the revenue.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tMrs.\n<\/p>\n
Mauna R. Bhatt learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue
\nsubmitted that the provisions  contained in Section 80 HHC are very
\nclear. Sub-section 4 of Section 80HHC of the Income-Tax Act, 1961
\nclearly stipulates that the deduction under sub-section (1) shall not
\nbe admissible unless the assessee  furnishes in the prescribed form
\nalong with the return of income, the report of an accountant, as
\ndefined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of Section 288,
\ncertifying that the deduction has been correctly claimed in
\naccordance with the provisions of this section. She has, therefore,
\nsubmitted that whether the assessee has correctly claimed deduction
\nu\/s 88HHC of the Act has to be seen at the time of furnishing return
\nof income. If the report of the Accountant  is not filed along with
\nthe return of income certifying that the deduction was correctly
\nclaimed, the Assessing Officer cannot process the claim u\/s 80HHC of
\nthe Act. Therefore, if the assessee furnishes  the report
\nsubsequently and  on that basis he claims the deduction  u\/s 80HHC of
\nthe Act the same cannot be allowed. She has, therefore, submitted
\nthat the Assessing Officer  and CIT(A)  have taken correct view and
\nthe Tribunal should not have remanded the matter back to the
\nAssessing Officer to consider the claim of the assessee on merits.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAs
\nagainst this, learned advocate Mr. Tushar P. Hemani appearing with
\nMr. S.N. Soparkar learned senior counsel for the assessee  has
\nsubmitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this
\nCourt in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Oil and
\nAllied Industries, reported in (1993) 201 ITR 325.  He has submitted
\nthat the said decision has been followed by this Court in subsequent
\ndecision  in case of Zenith Processing Mills V\/s. Commissioner of
\nIncome-Tax, reported in (1996) 219 ITR 721.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Tushar Hemani has further submitted that the Calcutta High Court in
\nthe case of Commissioner of Income-Tax V\/s. Magnum Export (P) Ltd.,
\nreported in (2003) 262 ITR 10 has gone one step further  and held
\nthat the deduction  cannot be disallowed simply because  the audit
\nreport was not furnished along with the return. The purpose of
\nincorporation of  sub-section (4) was to enable the Assessing Officer
\nto ascertain the claim for deduction on the basis of authentication
\nby the auditor that the goods or merchandise  was really exported,
\nwhich is otherwise  admissible only on actual basis, a situation
\nwhich is difficult for the Assessing Officer to determine. While
\ndeciding the issue in favour of the assessee  the Calcutta High Court
\nhas relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Zenith
\nProcessing Mills V\/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax (supra). Mr. Hemani
\nhas further relied on the later decision of this Court in the case of
\n Commissioner of Income-Tax V\/s. Mayur Foundation (supra).\n<\/p>\n
10.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Hemani further relied on the later decision of this Court in the case
\nof  Commissioner of Income-Tax V\/s.  Mayur Fondation, (2005) 274 ITR
\n562 wherein this  Court has taken view after considering  the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court’s decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax
\nV\/s. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association, reported in (2001) 247 ITR
\n201 that the details have to be furnished   before the  completion of
\nassessment proceedings and   any   information  supplied subsequent
\nto the completion of the assessment cannot be  taken into
\nconsideration. The Court, therefore,  was of the view that the
\nquestion that arises is   when can an assessment be said to be
\ncomplete or till what point of time  the assessment proceedings can
\nbe said to be alive. Therefore, the Court took the view that
\njurisdiction to entertain the new ground which the assessee claimed
\nthe benefit under Section  11(2) of the Act and adjudicate the tax
\nliability of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tBased
\non the aforesaid decisions of this Court as well as the decisions of
\nthe Apex Court, Mr. Hemani has urged that  the Tribunal has rightly
\ndecided the appeal against the revenue and in favour of the  assessee
\nand directed the assessing officer to consider the claim of the
\nassessee under Section 80HHC of the Act on its own merits.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tWe
\nhave heard the learned counsels appearing for the Assessee and the
\nRevenue at great length. We have gone through the orders passed by
\nthe authorities below. We have also considered the relevant statutory
\nprovisions as contained in Section 80HHC of the Act and the
\nauthorities cited before the Court. We are of the view that the issue
\nis covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commission of
\nIncome-Tax Vs. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries (supra). The
\nquestion for  consideration before the Court in the said decision was
\n?SWhether, on the facts and  in the circumstances of the case,  the
\nTribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that  Section 80J(6A)
\nmerely requires that the audit report should be so furnished so that
\nit would be available at the time of assessment ? While answering
\nthe said question  in favour of the assessee and against the revenue,
\nthe Court took the view that the stage which is relevant  for
\nconsidering the merits of the claim  of the party is the stage  when
\nthe assessing authority sits  down  to assess income for the purpose
\nof computing  income-tax after  framing appropriate  assessment and
\nit is at that stage that the requirements of  Section 80J(1) read
\nwith  sub-section  (6A) thereof can be taken into consideration. It
\nis obvious that the main purpose  and object of section 80J(1)  is to
\ngive incentive and development  benefit to the new industries covered
\nby the provisions of  the Act.  Consequently,  while considering it,
\ncare has to be  taken to see that the relevant purpose underlying
\nsection 80J is  augmented and fortified and not frustrated by the
\nconstruction  put upon the said provision. The Court, therefore, took
\nthe view, that  even assuming that another view is possible on the
\nconstruction of  the second part of sub-section (6A) of Section 80J,
\nas that view is likely to  frustrate  the very object and purpose of
\nthe scheme  underlying section 80J(1) and would result in absurdity,
\nthe other view by which  the beneficial provision of section 80J(1)
\nis made fully operative should  be preferred.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThis
\nvery principle was reiterated  by this Court in the case of  Zenith
\nProcessing Mills V\/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax (supra), wherein it
\nis held that from the perusal of sub-section (6A) of section 80J of
\nthe Income-Tax Act, 1961, for claiming  deduction under Section 80J,
\nit is apparent that compliance in respect of two things is necessary.
\nThe first requirement  is that the  statement of accounts for the
\nprevious year  relevant to the assessment year  for which deduction
\nis claimed must have been audited by an accountant  and the second is
\nthat the assessee   must furnish  along with his  return of income
\nthe report of such audit in the prescribed form  duly signed and
\nverified by such accountant.  The former is the requirement  which
\nfurnishes the substantial foundation for claiming the allowance and
\nthe latter is the  requirement  of furnishing proof that the
\nfoundation  for claiming such deduction has been  laid. While
\ncompliance  with the former before the deduction  is claimed is
\nmandatory, so far as the manner of  submitting proof  of such
\ncompliance  along with the return is concerned,  it is directory
\nbecause such requirement falls  in the realm of procedure for
\nfurnishing evidence in support of the claim and can be  furnished  at
\nthe time while allowance  or disallowance  under section 80J of the
\nAct is being considered by the concerned authority.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tWhat
\nhas been  stated in respect of the claim under Section 80J  of the
\nIncome-Tax Act is equally applicable  to one under Section 80HHC.
\nSimply because  under section 80 HHC connotes  that the report of
\naccountant  in the prescribed form should be attached  along with the
\nreturn of income, certifying that  the deduction has been correctly
\nclaimed in accordance with the provisions of this Section, it does
\nnot mean that if such report is not attached along with the return of
\nincome and it is produced before the Assessing Officer during the
\ncourse of assessment proceedings,  the assessee is not entitled to
\nthe deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act.  To obtain the  report
\nof the Chartered Accountant is  a condition precedent and it is
\nmandatory in nature.  However, non-furnishing of such report  at the
\ntime of filing the return of income but  at subsequent stage and in
\nany case, before  the assessment proceeding is completed, the
\nassessee’s  claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act cannot
\nbe disallowed.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThis
\nview  which we are  taking is duly supported by earlier  two
\ndecisions of this court and we have found support from
\nthe decision of the Hon’ble  Apex Court in the case of Commissioner
\nof Income-Tax V\/s. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association, reported in
\n(2001) 247 ITR  201, where  the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that
\nit is abundantly clear  from the wording of sub-section (2) of
\nsection 11 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, that it is mandatory for the
\nperson  claiming the benefit  of Section 11 to intimate to the
\nassessing authority the  particulars  required, under rule 17 in Form
\nNo.10 of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962. If during the  assessment
\nproceedings, the Assessing Officer does not  have the necessary
\ninformation,  the question of excluding  such income  from assessment
\n does not arise at all. As a matter of fact,  this benefit of
\nexcluding  this particular part  of the income from the net of
\ntaxation arises from section  11 and is subject to  the conditions
\nspecified therein. Therefore, it is necessary that the   assessing
\nauthority  to give the benefit  of such exclusion. Even  assuming
\nthat there is no valid limitation  prescribed under the Act and the
\nRules, it is unreasonable  to presume that the intimation  required
\nunder Section 11 has to be furnished  before the assessing authority
\ncompletes the concerned  assessment because such requirement  is
\nmandatory and without the particulars of this income the assessing
\nauthority  cannot entertain  the claim of assessee under section 11
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIn
\nview of this settled legal position, we are of the view that the
\nTribunal was right in  holding that the Assessing Officer should not
\nhave   rejected the legitimate  claim of the assessee  on mere
\ntechnical ground i.e. non-furnishing  of the Chartered Accountant’s
\nreport along with the return of income. The Tribunal is also  right
\nin directing the Assessing Officer  to consider the claim  of the
\nassessee under Section 80HHC on its  own merits.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tWe,
\ntherefore, decide  this Tax Appeal in favour of the assessee and
\nagainst the  revenue and answer the question posed before us in
\naffirmative.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThis
\nappeal is accordingly disposed off without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(K.A.\n<\/p>\n
Puj, J.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Bankim
\nN. Mehta,J.)<\/p>\n
\/JVSatwara\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/480\/1999 2\/ 14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 480 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146347","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIncome vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-26T19:56:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-26T19:56:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2328,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-26T19:56:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-26T19:56:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-26T19:56:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008"},"wordCount":2328,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008","name":"Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-26T19:56:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/income-vs-unknown-on-6-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Income vs Unknown on 6 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146347","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146347"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146347\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146347"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146347"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146347"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}